Courting reforms

The government’s proposed constitutional amendments, especially the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), have ignited debate across Pakistan’s political and judicial landscape. Although these amendments were shelved in September, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has taken the lead in rallying stakeholders around the FCC, with Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari asserting that the court is essential to address provincial disparities. The PPP insists that this initiative aligns with the 2006 Charter of Democracy (CoD), emphasizing that broad consensus, similar to that achieved with the 18th Amendment, is necessary. There is merit in the PPP’s call for consensus, as judicial reforms should not be introduced without wide consultation and debate. The need for reform, particularly in Pakistan’s judiciary, is evident. The legacy of unchecked judicial power has left many questioning the judiciary’s role in democratic governance. For the PPP, which has long suffered at the hands of judicial overreach, establishing a constitutional court is seen as a necessary check on judicial interference in parliamentary matters.

Observers note that this is a rare instance where the PPP has taken full ownership of an issue, indicating its deep-seated concern with the judiciary’s overreach. For decades, the judiciary has resisted parliamentary oversight in appointments, fueling the PPP’s determination to introduce checks and balances. However, while the judiciary’s past interventions in democratic processes demand scrutiny, any effort to curtail its powers must be carefully considered and not rushed. The petitions filed in courts calling for a public debate on the amendments reflect a growing concern about transparency. These petitions raise an important question: should such significant legislation be pushed through without public scrutiny? The answer is no. Constitutional amendments, which require a two-thirds majority, must be openly debated to ensure transparency and avoid perceptions of a political power grab. The opacity surrounding the draft amendments, and the role played by the JUI-F in forcing changes, has only added to suspicions that the amendments are aimed at weakening the Supreme Court and curbing the powers of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP).

Critics argue that these amendments are a veiled attempt to strip the Supreme Court of its authority, particularly in matters of democratic oversight. Supporters within the government claim that the reforms will prevent the judiciary from playing a ‘negative role’ in democratic processes. Both perspectives hold weight, but the lack of clarity surrounding the amendments only fuels further mistrust. The PPP’s push for the FCC underscores its longstanding grievances with the judiciary – but meaningful reform cannot come from haphazard efforts. Pakistan’s judiciary is in need of reform, but the solution must be comprehensive, transparent, and free from political manipulation. The proposed draft should be made public immediately, allowing for a full and open debate before it is presented to parliament. Only then can Pakistan move towards meaningful judicial reform that serves the nation’s democracy rather than any individual political agenda. Will this be a step toward restoring balance and accountability, or will it merely serve the interests of those in power? Only an open, transparent process will tell.